[QUOTE=Ensign Edison]
Wow, it turns out something that contains the words “rape a baby” can make me laugh out loud. Would not have guessed.
[/QUOTE]
Rape is never funny.
Unless one of the participants is a clown.
[QUOTE=Scumpup]
I have moral standards to which I live up. …
[/QUOTE]
Rule #1. Willing to devastate a continent or any major nation, with the possible exception of my own, to extend the life of my child.
Rule #2. Willing to personally strangle as many innocant children as necessary to extend the life of my child.
Now, I’m not a Christian, in fact I’m an atheist, but I’ve read a little about the Christian god. Remind me, who did god supposedly sacrifice to make the world better?
Oh yeah, his son.
Makes your moral code look shoddy at best.
Actually, I have difficulty imagining a lower moral standard than yours.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
First, I am a peaceful man, and do not support any war. If innocents are purposefully killed in time of war, the people responsible should be prosecuted.
[/QUOTE]
If those who killed innocents decline to submit to prosecution, do you support going to war to arrest them?
What if they had big tits?
Regards,
Shodan
[QUOTE=Shodan]
If those who killed innocents decline to submit to prosecution, do you support going to war to arrest them?
What if they had big tits?
Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
Heh, points out why pacifism is ultimately untenable; the pacifist relies, in last resort, on those who do not share his or her moral values to uphold them; or, Gandhi-like, seeks to persuade those swayed by such morality - which only works where it is at least to some extent shared.
The side in this debate that favors killing large numbers of people for their children seem to be unable to defend their position without:
–making unknowable assumptions about their opponents. Even if your opponent donates nothing to charities, drinks lattes, and supports wars, who cares? Ad hominem fallacy. Does your argument fall apart against someone for whom that’s not true?
–holding their opponents responsible for other people’s actions or beliefs. It’s irrelevant that other people are “out there doing the same things for us”. Not only did I not ask those people to do those things, but I oppose them.
–appealing to a fallacious idea of pragmatism. We’re not talking about would, we’re talking about should. Would is not worth debating because we don’t have any idea what anyone would actually do in such a situation.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
If those who killed innocents decline to submit to prosecution, do you support going to war to arrest them?
[/QUOTE]
I will not kill, and not being a hypocrite, I will not ask others to kill for me.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
What if they had big tits?
[/quote]
The innocent victims, or the killers?
[QUOTE=Malthus]
Heh, points out why pacifism is ultimately untenable; the pacifist relies, in last resort, on those who do not share his or her moral values to uphold them; or, Gandhi-like, seeks to persuade those swayed by such morality - which only works where it is at least to some extent shared.
[/QUOTE]
No, I don’t.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
No, I don’t.
[/QUOTE]
Saying no don’t make it so.
I wonder how you avoid being protected by soldiers, police and the like. Indeed, how does a pacifist go about “prosecuting offenders” without the help of cops, soldiers and the like - as you have already said you would wish to see?
[QUOTE=Malthus]
Saying no don’t make it so.
I wonder how you avoid being protected by soldiers, police and the like. Indeed, how does a pacifist go about “prosecuting offenders” without the help of cops, soldiers and the like - as you have already said you would wish to see?
[/QUOTE]
I do not ask anyone to protect me by using violence, I would not condemn them if they refused to do so, and every invention out there that enables non-violent resolution to conflict makes me happier. If someone is already in custody, it doesn’t take violence to convict them, just proper restraints. As far as soldiers are concerned, all of them are fighting for the right cause-just ask them. Many people say that they are willing to die for what they believe in, when what they mean is that they are willing to kill for what they believe in until they in turn are killed. I can die for what I believe in, but I cannot strike another, let alone kill. It isn’t a question of superior ethics or morals-just a small quirk(or defect, if you will) in my system.
[QUOTE=matt]
It’s a nasty, shitty world out there, true. A world that your children are going to grow up in. Are you going to teach them that they should be nasty, shitty people to survive in it? Take what you can get and fuck everyone else? People thinking that way is the reason WHY it’s a nasty, shitty world out there. A Catch 22 which humans will never break out of unless enough of us are prepared to aspire for better.
It’s no coincidence that there are places in the world where life isn’t quite so apalling. Where we don’t worry about neighbouring tribes, local warlords and other fuckheads turning up and massacreing everybody. It’s the work of thousands of years of individuals who aspired to make the world LESS nasty and shitty. Plato, Aesop, Jesus, Buddha, Voltaire, Swift, Ghandi, Mandela… All people who dared to imagine that it doesn’t have to be dog-eat-dog all the time. It’s because of them and people like them that we have what we have. Accountability and scrutiny of those in power, equality of opportunity, equality before the law… these concepts didn’t just spring up like mushrooms. Our (barely!) civilised societies are built on the ideas of philosophers and humanitarians and dreamers over centuries. And the whole time it’s been a constant, grinding battle against people like you and Shagnasty.
I’m not saying that you’re always wrong to think in that way. In some kind of post-Apocalyptic scenario where there’s 5 times as many survivors as the land can support without mechanised agriculture, you can bet I’m going to tool up, loot, hoard, and hunker down with my loved ones behind a barricade. That’s understandable, reasonable even, because that’s the playing field we’d all be facing, my poor benighted fellow survivors and their own loved ones in the same situation. Same with the “who get’s the parachutes” question. But you stated that you’d invade a home and kill the family for the money in their safe. Presumably, in the context of the OP, to pay for your daughter’s life-saving operation. Or you’d strangle a whole elementary school. That’s not dog-eat-dog, that’s an empathy so atrophied as to be a survival disadvantage. How can you ever trust anyone? How can anyone ever trust you?
[/QUOTE]
This post is pretty perfect, IMHO.
But to reply to Shagnasty (and others):
[QUOTE=Shagnasty]
I have never been opposed to genocide as a general rule and none of the rest of you have either. It sounds icky and painful which is true but any truly caring person would be in Rwanda, Somalia, or countless other places around the world where genocide is happening today to sacrifice themselves for an impoverished family of five. It is all bullshit and you don’t hold the same morality you choose to think you do. That is the true hyperbole and you need to come to grips with that in your mind once and for all so that you can become a mature person.
I am an existentialist and my beliefs make it obvious that you would nuke, personally murder, torture, or do whatever else to save your small children. That isn’t hyperbole. It is a core and obvious belief that requires no higher thought.
[/QUOTE]
This is just not true. Not sacrificing my life at any opportunity when I know it could save more lives does not make me a hypocrite for saying I am against injustice. By that argument anyone who does nothing but the most extreme sacrifice for a cause is a liar and doesn’t really believe what he or she says he or she believes.
The trick with life is that everything is not black and white like that; in fact, no one (for all intents and purposes) is able to hold an absolute belief like that and act on it consistently. In fact, Shagnasty, I’m sure that there have been times when you could have hurt other people to benefit you and yours, yet you didn’t. Does that mean that you don’t really believe what you think you believe?
I can support, say, local industry without buying absolutely everything from local businesses. It’s just about impossible to act absolutely on any given belief, and I don’t hold it against people (or insist that they’re mistaken about how they really feel) who don’t act how I think they ought to support that belief. There’s a broad spectrum of action that a reasonable person would qualify as “honest” with regards to a stated belief.
The other part of this question that no one has addressed yet refers to your second paragraph, which is the assumption that one’s child must be the 100% most important thing in the universe in order to be a moral person. This again is flat-out wrong, or at least is not the given that some make it out to be. It’s not a core and obvious belief.
As a human we have obligations to our kin and also to our community. One does not always trump the other in all circumstances.
[QUOTE=monstro]
What if by killing all these innocents, you set your children up for a lifetime of constantly defending themselves against avengers? Are you willing to ruin their lives to save their lives?
And why should anyone be sympathetic to you or your people when at any moment the whole world could be in your savage cross-hairs?
If other Israelis feel the same way you do, Alessan, I don’t see how we can possibly give Israel any moral highground over the Palestinians. I hate to say it, but your performance in this thread lends credence to the idea that nuking the hell out of all you fuckers is the best thing for everyone.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, I also wanted to say, this is a really inappropriate hijack.
You’re right monstro, bases on Alessan’s comments, which must be indicative of all Israelis (just as my comments are indicative of all Americans), the Palestinians must be 100% right, the Israelis all immoral, and we should nuke Israel.
Fuck off. That post was a waste of bandwidth.
[QUOTE=Scumpup]
Nobody gave a shit about the Jews, except the Jews.
[/QUOTE]
You mean the Holocaust? Jesus CHRIST, not only are you a sick bastard, you’re a stupid one as well.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
I do not ask anyone to protect me by using violence
[/quote]
Don’t be silly - of course you do.
You said earlier that those who attack the innocent should be arrested. Here
you say that you won’t do it yourself. Ergo, you are asking others to protect you using violence.
And as Malthus points out, the only reason you can strike these contradictory moral postures is because other people are willing to do your dirty work for you. In return, you can preen yourself on your moral superiority.
Nice work if you can get it.
Regards,
Shodan
[QUOTE=Eonwe]
Oh, I also wanted to say, this is a really inappropriate hijack.
You’re right monstro, bases on Alessan’s comments, which must be indicative of all Israelis (just as my comments are indicative of all Americans), the Palestinians must be 100% right, the Israelis all immoral, and we should nuke Israel.
Fuck off. That post was a waste of bandwidth.
[/QUOTE]
Did you not understand what “if” means? As in “If other Israelis feel the same way you do…*”?
If Alessan were Palestinian, I would have said the exact same thing.
So take the panties out of your ass, Timmy.
The thing I love most about **Alessan’s ** posts is that according to his reasoning, in designing the Final Solution, Hitler was only guilty of a factual error–he falsely believed that the Jews were an existential threat to the German people. Hitler was wrong about this, but if he had been correct, then the Holocaust would have been perfectly justified by **Alessan’s ** reasoning. In a thread that is already thoroughly Godwinized, that seems pretty much like a reductio ad absurdum to me.
[QUOTE=monstro]
Did you not understand what “if” means? As in “If other Israelis feel the same way you do…*”?
If Alessan were Palestinian, I would have said the exact same thing.
So take the panties out of your ass, Timmy.
[/QUOTE]
No, I get it.
Look, I think that, for example Sophistry and Illusion’s post immediately preceding this one makes a legitimate argument to Alessan’s position. You, on the other hand, aside from arguing against his position, assert that you feel that because of one person who may or may not be out in left field, maybe it’s best to nuke Israel:
So are you arguing from the same “kill 'em all” position that you seem to be accusing Alessan of?
(Also I don’t get the panties/Timmy reference. Is that a South Park episode I missed?)
[QUOTE=Eonwe]
So are you arguing from the same “kill 'em all” position that you seem to be accusing Alessan of?
[/QUOTE]
No, I’m not. I’m not for killing anyone unless they are a threat to my life.
Alessan’s sociopathic sentiments don’t do much to persuade people against thinking such things, though. I’d say his beliefs are the EXACT reason why people want to “nuke em all”. Apparently he doesn’t care though. He doesn’t care about having any moral highground. All he cares about is his life and DNA.
I’m not sure why people have been so offended by what I said. Perhaps I should have worded it differently.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Don’t be silly - of course you do.
You said earlier that those who attack the innocent should be arrested. Here you say that you won’t do it yourself. Ergo, you are asking others to protect you using violence.
[/quote]
Yes, they should be arrested using non-violent means whenever possible, which is why I am in favor of developing non-violent arrest methods.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
And as Malthus points out, the only reason you can strike these contradictory moral postures is because other people are willing to do your dirty work for you. In return, you can preen yourself on your moral superiority.
[/quote]
I don’t want people to be violent for my sake, I don’t ask people to be violent for my sake, and if someone refused to use violence to protect me, it wouldn’t bother me in the least. As far as this “moral superiority” crap you are trying to pin on me, I suggest you re-read what I wrote-I specifically claimed no such thing. In over fifty years I have never struck another, and it has nothing to do with “moral superiority”. I just can’t even envision it. Most people might even call it a mental defect, and I’m probably lucky I’ve lived this long.
[QUOTE=Scumpup]
This thread got repetitious a while back. I’ve said all I have to say on the topic twice already, so I’m done unless somebody brings something new to the discussion.
[/QUOTE]
So no answer to who, exactly, I have to thank?
I would do anything, including killing my own child, to save my own child.
Geez, people, you’re still taking this fucked-up hypothetical seriously? Fine. If I could push a button to make everyone in Africa die of agonizing blood-acid disease if it would keep my child from having to get the sniffles, I’d do it. In fact, given such a button, I’d press it for laughs even before the magic-button-producing entity even finished explaining its anti-sniffles function.
Entity: But wait, pushing that button also causes everyone in Asia to die of Explosive Diarrhea Disease! Now will you consider the moral aspects?
Me: [pushing button] Yeah, Asia, whatever.